MIT Cannot Afford to End Support for ROTC

MITCannot Afford To End Support For ROTC

I read with interest your editorial ["Institute Must Plan to End ROTC,"
Feb. 14] advocating ending MIT participation in ROTC. Your argument was
very clear: ROTC programs discriminate against homosexuals, and since this
is both wrong and in violation of MIT policy, MIT participation in ROTC
should be ended with some due course consideration given to MIT ROTC
cadets. This argument fails entirely to consider the consequences of such
an action on the Institute itself.

Congress recently asked the Department of Defense to submit a list of
U.S. universities that prohibited military recruiting and ROTC activities
on its campus so that it could enforce a recently enacted appropriation
provision that seeks to end federal funding to universities who impede the
execution of a national defense. To the surprise of many members of
Congress, this list was very short. It seems most universities do not
prohibit military and ROTC recruiting even though some of their subordinate
schools do so. Clearly, universities like MIT cannot afford to even
consider actions that would restrict or deny access to federal
appropriations, nor could student bodies. MIT has been adversely affected
by the current defense draw down, but would be devastated by an elimination
of all federal support. Now of course this won't happen - neither MIT nor
the nation could afford the consequences. In the meantime, MIT has no
choice but to keep its ROTC program. There may be some "work around"
arrangements made to seemingly separate the Institute from the ROTC
program, but student access will not be impeded.

Furthermore, relief of this thorny issue for MIT executives is not
likely soon. The president and commander-in-chief, Congress, the Department
of Defense, and the component military services have participated in a
process that has resulted in a policy that states that "homosexuality is
incompatible with military service." Furthermore, homosexual acts committed
by service members on and off duty are illegal under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (passed by Congress) and can result in incarceration, and
that overt homosexual tendencies are grounds for administrative
separation.

The bottom line is that MIT's anti-discrimination policy in regards to
homosexuals will probably not take precedence to the law of the land.
Ultimately, this contentious issue may be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for homosexual rights advocates, the Court has usually
allowed the Congress and the commander-in-chief to raise and administer
armies and to fight wars without much interference from the judicial
branch. I suspect that this trend will continue.